Classification of Thracian

The linguistic classification of the ancient Thracian language has long been a matter of contention and uncertainty, and there are widely varying hypotheses regarding its position among other Paleo-Balkan languages,[1][2] it is not contested, however, that the Thracian languages were Indo-European languages which had acquired satem characteristics by the time they are attested.

The longer Thracian inscriptions that are known[3] (if they are indeed examples of Thracian sentences and phrases, which has not been determined) are not apparently close to Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, or any other known language, and they have not been satisfactorily deciphered aside from perhaps a few words.

A Daco-Thracian (or Thraco-Dacian) grouping with Dacian as either the same language or different from Thracian was widely held until the 1950s, but is untenable (according to J. P. Mallory) in light of toponymic evidence: only a percent of place names north of the Danube betray "pan-Thracian" roots.[4] The hypothesis of a Thraco-Dacian or Daco-Thracian branch of IE, indicating a close link between the Thracian and Dacian languages, has numerous adherents, including Russu 1967, Georg Solta 1980, Vraciu 1980, Crossland, Trask (2000), McHenry (1993), Mihailov (2008). Crossland (1982) considers that the divergence of a presumed original Thraco-Dacian language into northern and southern groups of dialects is not so significant as to rank them as separate languages. According to Georg Solta (1982), there is no significant difference between Dacian and Thracian. Rădulescu (1984) accepts that Daco-Moesian possesses a certain degree of dialectal individuality, but argues that there is no fundamental separation between Daco-Moesian and Thracian. Crossland considers this seems to be a divergence of a Thraco-Dacian language into northern and southern groups of dialects, not as different as to rank as separate languages.[5][dubious– discuss] Polomé (1982) considers that the evidence presented by Georgiev and Duridanov, although substantial, is not sufficient to determine whether Daco-Moesian and Thracian were two dialects of the same language or two distinct languages.

In the 1950s, the Bulgarian linguist Vladimir I. Georgiev published his work which argued that Dacian and Albanian should be assigned to a language branch termed Daco-Mysian, Mysian (the term Mysian derives from the Daco-Thracian tribe known as the Moesi)[6] being thought of as a transitional language between Dacian and Thracian. Georgiev argued that Dacian and Thracian are different languages, with different phonetic systems, his idea being supported by the placenames, which end in -dava in Dacian and Mysian, as opposed to -para, in Thracian placenames.[7] Georgiev argues that the distance between Dacian and Thracian was approximately the same as that between the Armenian and Persian languages, the claim of Georgiev that Albanian is a direct recent descendant of Daco-Moesian, not only a part of the branch, is highly based on speculations as suffixes from Dacian toponyms as Dava, for example, are lacking in modern Albanian toponymy (with one exception).

The Baltic classification of Dacian and Thracian has been proposed by the Lithuanian polymath Jonas Basanavičius, referred to as "Patriarch of Lithuania", who insisted this is the most important work of his life and listed 600 identical words of Balts and Thracians[8][9][10] and was the first to investigate similarities in vocal traditions between Lithuanians and Bulgarians.[11] He also theoretically included Dacian and Phrygian in the related group, but a part of this inclusion was unsupported by other authors, such as the linguistic analysis of Ivan Duridanov, which found Phrygian completely lacking parallels in either Thracian or Baltic languages.[12]

The Bulgarian linguist Ivan Duridanov, in his first publication claimed that Thracian and Dacian are genetically linked to the Baltic languages[13] and in the next one he made the following classification: "The Thracian language formed a close group with the Baltic (resp. Balto-Slavic), the Dacian and the "Pelasgian" languages. More distant were its relations with the other Indo-European languages, and especially with Greek, the Italic and Celtic languages, which exhibit only isolated phonetic similarities with Thracian; the Tokharian and the Hittite were also distant."[12] Of about 200 reconstructed Thracian words[14] by Duridanov, most cognates (138) appear in the Baltic languages, mostly in Lithuanian, followed by Germanic (61), Indo-Aryan (41), Greek (36), Bulgarian (23), Latin (10) and Albanian (8), the use of toponyms is suggested to determine the extent of a culture's influence. Parallels have enabled linguists, using the techniques of comparative linguistics, to decipher the meanings of several Dacian and Thracian placenames with, they claim, a high degree of probability. Of 300 attested Thracian geographic names[15] most parallels were found between Thracian and Baltic and geographic names in the study of Duridanov.[12][16] According to him the most important impression make the geographic cognates of Baltic and Thracian "the similarity of these parallels stretching frequently on the main element and the suffix simultaneously, which makes a strong impression",[16] he also reconstructed Dacian words and Dacian placenames and found parallels mostly in the Baltic languages, followed by Albanian. [12] Other Slavic authors noted that Dacian and Thracian have much in common with Baltic onomastics and explicitly not in any similar way with Slavic onomastics, including cognates and parallels of lexical isoglosses, which implies a recent common ancestor.[17]

After creating a list of names of rivers and personal names with a high number of parallels, the Romanian linguist Mircea M. Radulescu classified the Daco-Moesian and Thracian as Baltic languages, result of Baltic expansion to the south and also proposed such classification for Illyrian.[18]

The American linguist Harvey Mayer refers to both Dacian and Thracian as Baltic languages and refers to them as Southern or Eastern Baltic, he claims to have sufficient evidence for classifying them as Baltoidic or at least "Baltic-like," if not exactly, Baltic dialects or languages[20][21] and classifies Dacians and Thracians as "Balts by extension".[22] Mayer claims that he extracted an unambiguous evidence for regarding Dacian and Thracian as more tied to Lithuanian than to Latvian.[21][23]

Finally, I label Thracian and Dacian as East Baltic...The fitting of special Dacian and Thracian features (which I identified from Duridanov’s listings) into Baltic isogloss patterns so that I identified Dacian and Thracian as southeast Baltic. South Baltic because, like Old Prussian, they keep unchanged the diphthongs ei, ai, en, an (north Baltic Lithuanian and Latvian show varying percentages of ei, ai to ie, and en, an to ę, ą (to ē, ā) in Lithuanian, to ie, uo in Latvian). East Baltic because the Dacian word žuvete (now in Rumanian spelled juvete) has ž, not z as in west Baltic, and the Thracian word pušis (the Latin-Greek transcription shows pousis which, I believe, reflects -š-.) with zero grade puš- as in Lithuanian pušìs rather than with e-grade *peuš- as in Prussian peusē. Zero grade in this word is east Baltic, e-grade here is west Baltic, while the other word for “pine, evergreen”, preidē (Prussian and Dacian), priede (Latvian), is marginal in Lithuanian matched by no *peus- in Latvian.

Thraco-Illyrian is a hypothesis that the Thraco-Dacian and Illyrian languages comprise a distinct branch of Indo-European. Thraco-Illyrian is also used as a term merely implying a Thracian-Illyrian interference, mixture or sprachbund, or as a shorthand way of saying that it is not determined whether a subject is to be considered as pertaining to Thracian or Illyrian. Downgraded to a geo-linguistic concept, these languages are referred to as Paleo-Balkan.

The rivers Vardar and Morava are generally taken as the rough line of demarcation between the Illyrian sphere on the west and Thracian on the east.[24] There is, however, much interference in the area between Illyrian and Thracian, with Thracian groups inhabiting Illyrian lands (the Thracian Bryges for example) and Illyrian groups overlapping into the Thracian zone (the Dardani[25] seem to be a Thraco-Illyrian mix; Wilkes, 1992 et al.). It appears that Thracian and Illyrian do not have a clear-cut frontier.[26] Similarities found between the Illyrian and Thracian lexis can thus be seen as merely linguistic interference.[27]

Others such as I.I. Russu argue that there should have been major similarities between Illyrian and Thracian, and a common linguistic branch (not merely a Sprachbund) is probable, among the Thraco-Illyrian correspondences Russu considers are the following:

Not many Thraco-Illyrian correspondences are definite, and a number may be incorrect, even from the list above. However, Sorin Paliga states:[28] "According to the available data, we may surmise that Thracian and Illyrian were mutually understandable, e.g. like Czech and Slovak, in one extreme, or like Spanish and Portuguese, at the other." Other linguists argue that Illyrian and Thracian were different Indo-European branches which later converged through contact. It is also of significance that Illyrian languages still have not been classified whether they were centum or satem language, while it is undisputed that Thracian was a satem language by the Classical Period.[29]

Due to the fragmentary attestation of both Illyrian and Thraco-Dacian, the existence of a Thraco-Illyrian branch remains controversial; in fact, this linguistic hypothesis was seriously called into question in the 1960s. New publications argued that no strong evidence for Thraco-Illyrian exists, and that the two language-areas show more differences than correspondences,[30] the place of Paeonian language remains unclear. Modern linguists are uncertain on the classification of Paeonian, due to the extreme scarcity of materials we have on this language, on one side are Wilhelm Tomaschek and Paul Kretschmer, who claim it belonged to the Illyrian family, and on the other side is Dimiter Dechev, who claims affinities with Thracian.

In 1977 Georgiev claimed that Daco-Mysian was closely related to the Thracian branch of Indo-European and that Illyrian was different from Thracian "as much as Iranian from Latin" for example.[31]

There are a number of close cognates between Thracian and Albanian, but this may indicate only that Thracian and Albanian are related but not very closely related satem IE languages on their own branches of Indo-European, analogous to the situation between Albanian and the Baltic languages: Albanian and Baltic share many close cognates,[32] while according to Mayer, Albanian is a descendant of Illyrian and escaped any heavy Baltic influence of Daco-Thracian.[22] Still, the hypothesis that Thracian and Albanian form a distinct branch (often in these scenarios, along with Dacian) of Indo-European is given much consideration even today. A few of the cognates between Thracian and Albanian may actually represent borrowings from one language to another;[citation needed] in most cases this is ruled out because a word or lexical item follows the sound-changes expected in the language from its PIE sound-changes.

Among the cognates between Thracian and Albanian: the Thracian inscription mezenai on the Duvanli gold ring has been unanimously linked to Messapianmenzana (=horse deity) to Albanian mëz (=pony), as well as to Romanianmânz (=colt), and it is agreed that Thracian mezenai meant 'horseman'; Thracian manteia is supposed to be cognate to Albanian mand (=mulberry). This view has not gained wide acceptance among scholars and is rejected by most Albanian linguists, who both mainly consider that Albanian belongs to the Illyrian branch of IE.[33] Polome accepts the claim that Albanian is descended from Illyrian, not Thracian, although he considers the evidence for this as inconclusive. A toponymic analysis of a Bulgarian linguist showed incosistency between toponymy of the Bessi and Albanian toponymy.

Sorin Mihai Olteanu, a Romanian linguist and Thracologist, proposed that the Thracian (as well as the Dacian) language was a centum language in its earlier period, and developed satem features over time.[34] One of the arguments for this idea is that there are many close cognates between Thracian and Ancient Greek. There are also substratum words in the Romanian language that are cited as evidence of the genetic relationship of the Thracian language to ancient Greek and the Ancient Macedonian language (the extinct language or Greek dialect of ancient Macedon). The Greek language itself may be grouped with the Phrygian language and Armenian language, both of which have been grouped with Thracian in the past.

As in the case with Albanian and Balto-Slavic, there is no compelling evidence that Thracian and Greek (or Daco-Thracian and Greco-Macedonian) share a close common ancestor.

For a long time a Thraco-Phrygian hypothesis grouping Thracian with the extinct Phrygian language was considered, largely based on Greek historians like Strabo. By extension of identifying Phrygians with Proto-Armenians, a Thraco-Phrygian branch of Indo-European was postulated with Thracian, Phrygian and Armenian and constituent languages, the evidence for this seems to have been mostly based on interpretations of history and identifying the eastern Mushki with Armenians and assuming they had branched off from western Mushki (whom has been conclusively identified as Phrygians).[35] However, in 1988 Fredrik Kortlandt argued, on linguistic grounds such as a common treatment of Proto-Indo-European glottal stops, that Armenian descended from a Thracian dialect. Thus, forming a Thraco-Armenian branch of Indo-European; in 2016 Kortlandt extended his theories, postulating a link between Thraco-Armenian and the hypothetical Graeco-Phrygian language family, despite Thracian and Armenian being Satem languages and Greek and Phrygian Centum languages Kortlandt identifies sound correspondences and grammatical similarities postulating a relationship between his Thraco-Armenian family and the more established Graeco-Phrygian family. Graeco-Armenian is by itself a common hypothesized subgrouping of Indo-European languages. Kortlandt considers Albanian a descendent of Dacian which he regards as belonging to a separate language family as Thraco-Armenian.[36]

Older textbooks grouped Phrygian and Armenian with Thracian, but the belief is no longer popular and is mostly discarded.[37] Today, Phrygian is not widely seen as linked to Thracian.[38] Georgiev claimed that Thracian is different from Phrygian "as much as Greek from Albanian", comparing 150 Phrygian inscriptions.[31] Duridanov found in 1976 Phrygian completely lacking parallels in Thracian and concluded that the Thraco-Phrygian theory is debunked. Duridanov argued that the Thraco-Illyrian theory is a mistake of the past: "In the past it was regarded that Thracian together with the Phrygian and other vanished languages belonged to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages, this mistake was corrected in the 80’s of the last century, but the ambiguities still persisted: the Thracian was combined in one group with the Phrygian (P. Kretschmer), and later – with the Illyrian (the language, spoken in the modern Dalmatia and Albania)."

^This is confirmed among others by Benjamin W. Fortson in his Indo-European Language and Culture, when he states that "all attempts to relate Thracian to Phrygian, Illyrian, or Dacian...are...purely speculative." (p. 90).

^The Moesi of Moesia are not to be confused with the Mysoi (Mysians) of Mysia in ancient Anatolia, though some[who?] hypothesize that the Mysians are directly descended from the Balkan Moesi. Georgiev claimed that Thracian is related to Daco-Moesian but distinct from Illyrian, this is hypothesized mostly on the basis of Strabo's claim that some Moesians had migrated to Mysia, becoming the Mysians of Anatolia. Also in some classical sources the Moesi of Moesia are called Μυσοί; Thracologists often see this as a corruption. Thracologists have noted a Thracian element in Mysia, but the Mysians are more often[citation needed] viewed as a non-Thraco-Dacic people akin to the Phrygians, not the Thracians.

^See C. Brixhe - Ancient languages of Asia Minor, Cambridge University Press, 2008 We will dismiss, at least temporarily, the idea of a Thraco-Phrygian unity. Thraco-Dacian (or Thracian and Daco-Mysian) seems to belong to the eastern (satem) group of Indo-European languages and its (their) phonetic system is far less conservative than that of Phrygian (see Brixhe and Panayotou 1994, §§3ff.

Crossland, R.A.; Boardman, John (1982). "Linguistic problems of the Balkan area in the late prehistoric and early Classical period" in The Cambridge Ancient History Volume 3, Part 1. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-22496-3.

1.
Thracian language
–
The Thracian language was the Indo-European language spoken in ancient times in Southeast Europe by the Thracians, the northern neighbors of the Ancient Greeks. The Thracian language exhibits satemization, it belonged to the satem group of Indo-European languages or it was strongly influenced by satem languages. The language was still in use at least until the sixth century AD, the place where the monasteries were founded was called Cutila, which may be a Thracian name. The further fate of the Thracian language is a matter of dispute, some authors like Harvey Mayer group Thracian and Dacian into a southern Baltic linguistic family. The Thracian language was spoken in what is now Bulgaria, eastern Republic of Macedonia, Northern Greece, European Turkey, eastern Serbia is usually considered by paleolinguists to have been a Daco-Moesian language area. Some of the longer inscriptions may indeed be Thracian in origin but they may not reflect actual Thracian language sentences, but rather jumbles of names or magical formulas. Enough Thracian lexical items have survived to show that Thracian was a member of the Indo-European language family, other ancient Greek lexical items were not specifically identified as Thracian by the ancient Greeks but are hypothesized by paleolinguists as being or probably being of Thracian origin. Other lexical items are hypothesized on the basis of local anthroponyms, toponyms, hydronyms, oronyms, below is a table showing both words cited as being Thracian in classical sources, and lexical elements that have been extracted by paleolinguists from Thracian anthroponyms, toponyms, etc. See also the List of reconstructed Dacian words, significant cognates from any Indo-European language are listed. However, not all items in Thracian are assumed to be from the Proto-Indo-European language. They include the element in Parthenon, balios, bounos, hill. The Thracian horseman hero was an important figure in Thracian religion, mythology, depictions of the Thracian Horseman are found in numerous archaeological remains and artifacts from Thracian regions. From the Duvanli ring and from cognates in numerous Indo-European languages, mezēna is seen to be a Thracian word for horse, deriving from PIE *mend-. Ut- based on the PIE root word ud- and based on several Thracic items, would have meant upon, up, and Utaspios is theorized to have meant On horse, parallel to ancient Greek epi-hippos. The early Indo-European languages had more than one word for horse, for example Latin had equus from PIE *ekwo- and mannus from another IE root, in many cases in current Thracology, there is more than one etymology for a Thracian lexical item. For example, Thracian Diana Germetitha has two different proposed etymologies, Diana of the bosom or Diana of the warm radiance. In other cases, etymologies for the Thracian lexical items may be sound, only four Thracian inscriptions of any length have been found. The first is a ring found in 1912 in the town of Ezerovo, Bulgaria

2.
Indo-European language
–
The Indo-European languages are a language family of several hundred related languages and dialects. There are about 445 living Indo-European languages, according to the estimate by Ethnologue, the most widely spoken Indo-European languages by native speakers are Spanish, English, Hindustani, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, and Punjabi, each with over 100 million speakers. Today, 46% of the population speaks an Indo-European language as a first language. The Indo-European family includes most of the languages of Europe, and parts of Western, Central. It was also predominant in ancient Anatolia, the ancient Tarim Basin and most of Central Asia until the medieval Turkic migrations, all Indo-European languages are descendants of a single prehistoric language, reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European, spoken sometime in the Neolithic era. Several disputed proposals link Indo-European to other language families. In the 16th century, European visitors to the Indian subcontinent began to notice similarities among Indo-Aryan, Iranian, in 1583, English Jesuit missionary Thomas Stephens in Goa wrote a letter to his brother in which he noted similarities between Indian languages and Greek and Latin. Another account to mention the ancient language Sanskrit came from Filippo Sassetti, a merchant born in Florence in 1540, writing in 1585, he noted some word similarities between Sanskrit and Italian. However, neither Stephens nor Sassettis observations led to further scholarly inquiry and he included in his hypothesis Dutch, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Persian, and German, later adding Slavic, Celtic, and Baltic languages. However, Van Boxhorns suggestions did not become known and did not stimulate further research. Ottoman Turkish traveler Evliya Çelebi visited Vienna in 1665–1666 as part of a diplomatic mission, gaston Coeurdoux and others made observations of the same type. Coeurdoux made a comparison of Sanskrit, Latin and Greek conjugations in the late 1760s to suggest a relationship among them. Thomas Young first used the term Indo-European in 1813, deriving from the extremes of the language family. A synonym is Indo-Germanic, specifying the familys southeasternmost and northwesternmost branches, a number of other synonymous terms have also been used. Franz Bopps Comparative Grammar appeared between 1833 and 1852 and marks the beginning of Indo-European studies as an academic discipline, the classical phase of Indo-European comparative linguistics leads from this work to August Schleichers 1861 Compendium and up to Karl Brugmanns Grundriss, published in the 1880s. Brugmanns neogrammarian reevaluation of the field and Ferdinand de Saussures development of the theory may be considered the beginning of modern Indo-European studies. This led to the laryngeal theory, a major step forward in Indo-European linguistics. Isolated terms in Luwian/Hittite mentioned in Semitic Old Assyrian texts from the 20th and 19th centuries BC, Hittite texts from about 1650 BC, Armenian, writing known from the beginning of the 5th century AD

3.
Satem
–
Languages of the Indo-European family are classified as either centum languages or satem languages according to how the dorsal consonants of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language developed. An example of the different developments is provided by the words for hundred found in the early attested Indo-European languages, in centum languages, they typically began with a /k/ sound, but in satem languages, they often began with /s/. In centum languages, the palatovelars, which included the initial consonant of the hundred root, in satem languages, they remained distinct, and the labiovelars merged with the plain velars. The centum–satem division forms an isogloss in synchronic descriptions of Indo-European languages and it is not thought that the Proto-Indo-European language split first into centum and satem branches from which all the centum and all the satem languages, respectively, would have derived. Each of the ten branches of the Indo-European family independently developed its status as a centum or satem language, the canonical centum languages of the Indo-European family are the western branches, Hellenic, Celtic, Italic and Germanic. They merged Proto-Indo-European palatovelars and plain velars, yielding plain velars only, the Anatolian branch likely falls outside the centum–satem dichotomy, for instance, Luwian indicates that all three dorsal consonant rows survived separately in Proto-Anatolian. The centumisation observed in Hittite is therefore assumed to have occurred only after the breakup of Proto-Anatolian, while Tocharian is generally regarded as a centum language, it is a special case, as it has merged all three of the PIE dorsal series into a single phoneme, *k. According to some scholars, that complicates the classification of Tocharian within the centum–satem model, in the centum languages, PIE roots reconstructed with palatovelars developed into forms with plain velars. For example, in the PIE root *ḱm̥tóm, hundred, the initial palatovelar *ḱ became a plain velar /k/, as in Latin centum, Greek katon, Welsh cant, Tocharian B kante. In the Germanic languages, the /k/ developed regularly by Grimms law to become /h/, centum languages also retained the distinction between the PIE labiovelar row and the plain velars. Labiovelars as single phonemes as opposed to biphonemes are attested in Greek, the boukólos rule, however, states that a labiovelar reduces to a plain velar when it occurs next to *u or *w. The centum–satem division refers to the development of the series at the time of the earliest separation of Proto-Indo-European into the proto-languages of its individual daughter branches. It does not apply to any later analogous developments within any individual branch, the satem languages belong to the eastern sub-families, especially Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. It lost the element of Proto-Indo-European labiovelars and merged them with plain velars. That set of developments, particularly the assibilation of palatovelars, is referred to as satemisation and it is also asserted that in Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic, in some environments, resonant consonants become /iR/ after plain velars but /uR/ after labiovelars. In the satem languages, the reflexes of the presumed PIE palatovelars are typically fricative or affricate consonants, another example is the Slavic prefix sъ-, which appears in Latin, a centum language, as co-, conjoin is cognate with Russian soyuz. An is found for PIE *ḱ in such languages as Latvian, Avestan, Russian and Armenian, for more reflexes, see the phonetic correspondences section below, note also the effect of the ruki sound law. Assibilation of velars in certain phonetic environments is a phenomenon in language development

4.
Indo-European languages
–
The Indo-European languages are a language family of several hundred related languages and dialects. There are about 445 living Indo-European languages, according to the estimate by Ethnologue, the most widely spoken Indo-European languages by native speakers are Spanish, English, Hindustani, Portuguese, Bengali, Russian, and Punjabi, each with over 100 million speakers. Today, 46% of the population speaks an Indo-European language as a first language. The Indo-European family includes most of the languages of Europe, and parts of Western, Central. It was also predominant in ancient Anatolia, the ancient Tarim Basin and most of Central Asia until the medieval Turkic migrations, all Indo-European languages are descendants of a single prehistoric language, reconstructed as Proto-Indo-European, spoken sometime in the Neolithic era. Several disputed proposals link Indo-European to other language families. In the 16th century, European visitors to the Indian subcontinent began to notice similarities among Indo-Aryan, Iranian, in 1583, English Jesuit missionary Thomas Stephens in Goa wrote a letter to his brother in which he noted similarities between Indian languages and Greek and Latin. Another account to mention the ancient language Sanskrit came from Filippo Sassetti, a merchant born in Florence in 1540, writing in 1585, he noted some word similarities between Sanskrit and Italian. However, neither Stephens nor Sassettis observations led to further scholarly inquiry and he included in his hypothesis Dutch, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Persian, and German, later adding Slavic, Celtic, and Baltic languages. However, Van Boxhorns suggestions did not become known and did not stimulate further research. Ottoman Turkish traveler Evliya Çelebi visited Vienna in 1665–1666 as part of a diplomatic mission, gaston Coeurdoux and others made observations of the same type. Coeurdoux made a comparison of Sanskrit, Latin and Greek conjugations in the late 1760s to suggest a relationship among them. Thomas Young first used the term Indo-European in 1813, deriving from the extremes of the language family. A synonym is Indo-Germanic, specifying the familys southeasternmost and northwesternmost branches, a number of other synonymous terms have also been used. Franz Bopps Comparative Grammar appeared between 1833 and 1852 and marks the beginning of Indo-European studies as an academic discipline, the classical phase of Indo-European comparative linguistics leads from this work to August Schleichers 1861 Compendium and up to Karl Brugmanns Grundriss, published in the 1880s. Brugmanns neogrammarian reevaluation of the field and Ferdinand de Saussures development of the theory may be considered the beginning of modern Indo-European studies. This led to the laryngeal theory, a major step forward in Indo-European linguistics. Isolated terms in Luwian/Hittite mentioned in Semitic Old Assyrian texts from the 20th and 19th centuries BC, Hittite texts from about 1650 BC, Armenian, writing known from the beginning of the 5th century AD

5.
Graeco-Armenian
–
Graeco-Armenian is the hypothetical common ancestor of the Greek and Armenian languages that postdates the Proto-Indo-European language. Its status is comparable to that of the Italo-Celtic grouping, each is considered plausible without being accepted as established communis opinio. The hypothetical Proto-Graeco-Armenian stage would need to date to the 3rd millennium BC, meillets hypothesis became popular in the wake of his Esquisse dune grammaire comparée de larménien classique. G. R. Eric Hamp supports the Graeco-Armenian thesis, anticipating even a time when we should speak of Helleno-Armenian, evaluation of the hypothesis is tied up with the analysis of the poorly attested Phrygian language. While Greek is attested very early times, allowing a secure reconstruction of a Proto-Greek language dating to circa 3rd millennium BC. It is strongly linked with Indo-Iranian languages, in particular, it is a satem language, the earliest testimony of the Armenian language dates to the 5th century AD. The earlier history of the language is unclear and the subject of much speculation and it is clear that Armenian is an Indo-European language, but its development is opaque. In any case, Armenian has many layers of loanwords and shows traces of long language contact with Greek, luay Nakhleh, Tandy Warnow, Don Ringe, and Steven N. Evans compared various phylogeny methods and found that five procedures support a Graeco-Armenian subgroup. This theory has argued for in various publications by scholars such as G. Neumann, G. Klingenschmitt, J. Matzinger. This Balkan subgroup in turn is supported by the method of Hans J. Holm

6.
Graeco-Aryan
–
Graeco-Aryan is a hypothetical clade within the Indo-European family, ancestral to the Greek language, the Armenian language, and the Indo-Iranian languages. Graeco-Aryan unity would have divided into Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian by the mid 3rd millennium BC. Graeco-Aryan has comparatively wide support among Indo-Europeanists for the Indo-European Homeland to be located in the Armenian Highland, early and strong evidence was given by Eulers 1979 examination on shared features in Greek and Sanskrit nominal flection. Used in tandem with the Graeco-Armenian hypothesis, the Armenian language would also be included under the label Aryano-Greco-Armenic, by 2500 BC, Proto-Greek and Proto-Indo-Iranian had separated, moving westward and eastward from the Pontic Steppe, respectively. If Graeco-Aryan is a group, Grassmanns law may have a common origin in Greek. Graeco-Aryan is invoked in particular in studies of mythology, e. g. by West

7.
Dacian language
–
The extinct Dacian language developed from Proto-Indo-European, possibly in the Carpathian region sometime in the period 3000–1500 BC. The language was extinct by AD600. In the 1st century AD, it was probably the predominant language of the ancient regions of Dacia and Moesia, Dacian was a language distinct from Thracian but closely related to it, belonging to the same branch of the Indo-European family. Dacian was a language not closely related to either Thracian or Phrygian, each of these languages belonging to different branches of Indo-European, e. g. Georgiev, the Dacian language is poorly documented. Unlike for Phrygian, which is documented by c.200 inscriptions, the Dacian names for a number of medicinal plants and herbs may survive in ancient literary texts, including about 60 plant-names in Dioscorides. About 1,150 personal names and 900 toponyms may also be of Dacian origin, a few hundred words in modern Romanian and Albanian may have originated in ancient Balkan languages such as Dacian. There is scholarly consensus that Dacian was a member of the Indo-European family of languages, according to both theories, proto-IE reached the Carpathian region no later than c.2500 BC. Supporters of both theories have suggested this region as IEs secondary urheimat, in which the differentiation of proto-IE into the various European language-groups began. There is thus considerable support for the thesis that Dacian developed in the Carpathian region during the third millennium BC, although its evolutionary pathways remains uncertain. From these proto-Thracians, in the Iron Age, developed the Dacians / North Thracians of the Danubian-Carpathian Area on the one hand, many characteristics of the Dacian language are disputed or unknown. No lengthy texts in Dacian exist, only a few glosses and personal names in ancient Greek, no Dacian-language inscriptions have been discovered, except some of names in the Latin or Greek alphabet. What is known about the language derives from, Placenames, river-names and personal names, the coin inscription KOΣON may also be a personal name, of the king who issued the coin. The Dacian names of about fifty plants written in Greek and Roman sources, etymologies have been established for only a few of them. Substratum words found in Romanian, the language that is today in most of the region once occupied by Dacian-speakers. These include about 400 words of uncertain origin, Romanian words for which a Dacian origin has been proposed include, balaur, brânză, mal, strugure. However, the value of the words as a source for the Dacian language is limited because there is no certainty that these are of Dacian origin. An illustration of the latter possibility are pre-Indo-European substratum in Spanish e. g. fox = zorro, from Basque azeri, a pre-Indo-European origin has been proposed for several Romanian substratum words e. g. balaur, brad. About 160 of the Romanian substratum words have cognates in Albanian, a possible example is Romanian brad, Alb. cognate bradh

8.
Bulgarians
–
Bulgarians are a South Slavic ethnic group who are native to Bulgaria and its neighboring regions. Bulgarian citizenship shall further be acquirable through naturalization, the population of Bulgaria descend from peoples with different origins and numbers. They became assimilated by the Slavic settlers in the First Bulgarian Empire, from the indigenous Thracian people certain cultural and ethnic elements were taken. Other pre-Slavic Indo-European peoples, including Dacians, Celts, Goths, Romans, Greeks, the Thracian language has been described as a southern Baltic language. Some pre-Slavic linguistic and cultural traces might have preserved in modern Bulgarians. Medieval historians claimed that the Triballi are the largest tribe and that subsequently changed their name to Bulgarians or Serbs. Others claimed that the Paeonians are Bulgarians, others claimed that the Moesi, according to archeological evidence from the late periods of Roman rule, the Romans did not decrease the number of Thracians significantly in major cities. The latter gradually inflicting total linguistic replacement of Thracian if the Thracians had not already been Romanized or Hellenized and they continued coming to the Balkans in many waves, but also leaving, most notably Justinian II settled as many as 30,000 Slavs from Thrace in Asia Minor. The Byzantines grouped the numerous Slavic tribes into two groups, the Sklavenoi and Antes, some Bulgarian scholars suggest that the Antes became one of the ancestors of the modern Bulgarians. The control of the Bulgars in the west was indirect and in the hands of the Slavic chiefs, the Bulgars are first mentioned in the 4th century in the vicinity of the North Caucasian steppe. However, any connection between the Bulgars and postulated Asian counterparts rest on little more than speculative and contorted etymologies. The Bulgars are not thought to have numerous, becoming a ruling elite in the areas they controlled. Their archeological evidence is concentrated in northeast Bulgaria and in Macedonia, mixed Bulgar-Slavic settlements emerged according to archeological evidence. Omurtag was the last ruler with a Turkic name and during the reign of Boris the Slavonic language reached an official level, a substantional number of loan words of the Bulgar language remained in the Medieval Bulgarian Slavic language and fewer survived in the modern. During the Early Byzantine Era, the Roman provincials in Scythia Minor and Moesia Secunda were already engaged in economic, the major port towns in Pontic Bulgaria remained Byzantine Greek in their outlook. The establishment of a new state molded the various Slav, Bulgar, in different periods to the ethnogenesis of the local population contributed also different Indo-European and Turkic people, who settled or lived on the Balkans. The First Bulgarian Empire was founded in 681, after the adoption of Orthodox Christianity in 864 it became one of the cultural centres of Slavic Europe. Its leading cultural position was consolidated with the invention of the Cyrillic script in its capital Preslav at the eve of the 10th century

9.
Albanian language
–
Centuries-old communities speaking Albanian-based dialects can be found scattered in Greece, Southern Italy, Sicily, and Ukraine. Due to the large Albanian diaspora, the number of speakers is much higher than the native speakers in Southeast Europe. The first audio recording of Albanian was made by Norbert Jokl on 4 April 1914 in Vienna, the Albanian language is part of the Indo-European language group. In general there is insufficient evidence to connect Albanian with one of those languages, Albanian is now considered an isolate within Indo-European, no extant language shares the same branch. The only other languages that are the surviving member of a branch of Indo-European are Armenian. Although Albanian shares lexical isoglosses with Greek, Balto-Slavic, and Germanic languages, in 1995, Ann Taylor, Donald Ringe and Tandy Warnow described as surprising their finding, using quantitative linguistic techniques, that Albanian appears to comprise a subgroup with Germanic. This theory is reinforced by subsequent research by the same authors, Albanian also shares two features with Balto-Slavic languages, a lengthening of syllabic consonants before voiced obstruents and a distinct treatment of long syllables ending in a sonorant. Other conservative features of Albanian include the retention of the distinction between active and middle voice, present tense and aorist. In another but uncommon hypothesis, Albanian is grouped with both Balto-Slavic and Germanic based on the merger of Proto-Indo-European *ǒ and *ǎ into *ǎ in a northern group. However, this shift is now regarded as only part of a larger push chain that affected all long vowels. The earliest loanwords attested in Albanian come from Doric Greek, whereas the strongest influence came from Latin, curtis, the loanwords do not necessarily indicate the geographical location of the ancestor of Albanian language. However, according to linguists, the borrowed words can help to get an idea about the place of origin. The period during which Proto-Albanian and Latin interacted was protracted and drawn out roughly from the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD. This is borne out into three layers of borrowings, the largest number belonging to the second layer, which may be compared to, for example. The first, with the fewest borrowings, was a time of less important interaction, the final period, probably preceding the Slavic or Germanic invasions, also has a notably smaller number of borrowings. Other formative changes include the syncretism of several case endings, especially in the plural. Such borrowing indicates that the Romanians migrated from an area where the majority was Slavic to an area with a majority of Albanian speakers and their movement is probably related to the expansion of the Bulgarian Empire into Albania around that time. Jernej Kopitar was the first to note Latins influence on Albanian, Kopitar gave examples such as Albanian qiqer from Latin cicer, qytet from civitas, peshk from piscis and shigjetë from sagitta

10.
Moesia
–
Moesia was an ancient region and later Roman province situated in the Balkans, along the south bank of the Danube River. It included most of the territory of modern-day Serbia and the parts of the modern Republic of Macedonia, as well Northern Bulgaria. In ancient geographical sources, Moesia was bounded to the south by the Haemus and Scardus mountains, to the west by the Drinus river, on the north by the Donaris, the region was inhabited chiefly by Thracians, Dacians, Illyrian and Thraco-Illyrian peoples. The name of the region comes from Moesi, Thraco-Dacian peoples who lived there before the Roman conquest, parts of Moesia belonged to the polity of Burebista, a Getae king who established his rule over a large part of the Northern Balkans between 82 BC and 44 BC. He led plunder and conquest raids across Central and Southeastern Europe, after his assassination in an inside plot, the empire was divided into several smaller states. The region, however, was not organized as a province until the last years of Augustus reign, in 6 AD, mention is made of its governor, as a province, Moesia was under an imperial consular legate. In 86 AD the Dacian king Duras ordered his troops to attack Roman Moesia, each was governed by an imperial consular legate and a procurator. From Moesia, Domitian began planning future campaigns into Dacia and by 87 he started an offensive against Dacia. Therefore, in the summer of 87, Fuscus led five or six legions across the Danube. The campaign against the Dacians ended without an outcome, and Decebalus. Emperor Trajan later arrived in Moesia, and he launched his first military campaign into the Dacian Kingdom c, march–May 101, crossing to the northern bank of the Danube River and defeating the Dacian army near Tapae, a mountain pass in the Carpathians. Trajans troops were mauled in the encounter, however, and he put off further campaigning for the year to heal troops, reinforce, during the following winter, King Decebalus launched a counter-attack across the Danube further downstream, but this was repulsed. Trajans army advanced further into Dacian territory and forced King Decebalus to submit to him a year later, Trajan returned to Rome in triumph and was granted the title Dacicus. The victory was celebrated by the Tropaeum Traiani, however, Decebalus in 105 undertook an invasion against Roman territory by attempting to stir up some of the tribes north of the river against the empire. Trajan took to the field again and after building with the design of Apollodorus of Damascus his massive bridge over the Danube, sometime around 272, at the Moesian city of Naissus or Nissa, future emperor Constantine I was born. During administrative reforms of Emperor Diocletian, both of the Moesian provinces were reorganized, in the same time, Moesia Inferior was divided into Moesia Secunda and Scythia Minor. Moesia Secundas main cities included Marcianopolis, Odessus, Nicopolis, Abrittus, Durostorum, Transmarisca, Sexaginta Prista and Novae, the garrison of Moesia Secunda included Legio I Italica and Legio XI Claudia, as well as independent infantry units, cavalry units, and river flotillas. The Notitia Dignitatum lists its units and their bases as of the 390s CE, units in Scythia Minor included Legio I Iovia and Legio II Herculia

11.
Dava (Dacian)
–
Dava is a Geto-Dacian name for a city, town or fortress. Generally, the name indicated a tribal center or an important settlement, some of the Dacian settlements and the fortresses employed the Murus Dacicus traditional construction technique. Many city names of the Dacians were composed of a lexical element affixed to -dava, -daua, -deva. Most of these towns are attested by Ptolemy, and therefore date from the 1st century CE, therefore, dava town derived from the reconstructed proto-Indo-European *dhewa settlement, cognate with Zazaki dewe, meaning village. The dava towns can be found as south as Sandanski and Plovdiv, strabo specified that the Daci are the Getae. The Dacians, Getae and their kings were considered as Thracians by the ancients. Below is a list of Dacian towns which include forms of dava in their name, Acidava. Philip II of Macedon conquered the area in 342-341 BC and renamed the city Philippoupolis, of which the later Dacian name for the city, todays city of Plovdiv in Bulgaria

12.
Thracians
–
The Thracians were a group of Indo-European tribes inhabiting a large area in southeastern Europe. They spoke the Thracian language – a scarcely attested branch of the Indo-European language family, the study of Thracians and Thracian culture is known as Thracology. Thracians are one of the three primary groups of modern Bulgarians. The first historical record about the Thracians is found in the Iliad, the ethnonym Thracian comes from Ancient Greek Θρᾷξ or Θρᾴκιος/Ionic, Θρηίκιος, and the toponym Thrace comes from Θρᾴκη/Ion. These forms are all exonyms as applied by the Greeks, in Greek mythology, Thrax was regarded as one of the reputed sons of the god Ares. In the Alcestis, Euripides mentions that one of the names of Ares himself was Thrax since he was regarded as the patron of Thrace, the origins of the Thracians remain obscure, in the absence of written historical records. Evidence of proto-Thracians in the period depends on artifacts of material culture. Leo Klejn identifies proto-Thracians with the multi-cordoned ware culture that was pushed away from Ukraine by the advancing timber grave culture and we speak of proto-Thracians from which during the Iron Age Dacians and Thracians begin developing. Divided into separate tribes, the Thracians did not manage to form a political organization until the Odrysian state was founded in the fifth century BC. A strong Dacian state appeared in the first century BC, during the reign of King Burebista, including the Illyrians, the mountainous regions were home to various peoples regarded as warlike and ferocious Thracian tribes, while the plains peoples were apparently regarded as more peaceable. Thracians inhabited parts of the ancient provinces of Thrace, Moesia, Macedonia, Dacia, Scythia Minor, Sarmatia, Bithynia, Mysia, Pannonia, and other regions of the Balkans and Anatolia. This area extended over most of the Balkans region, and the Getae north of the Danube as far as beyond the Bug and including Panonia in the west. Aligning themselves in kingdoms and tribes, they never displayed any form of unity beyond short. Similar to the Celtic and Slavic tribes, most people are thought to have lived simply in small fortified villages, although the concept of an urban center was not developed until the Roman period, various larger fortifications which also served as regional market centers were numerous. Yet, in general, despite Greek colonization in such areas as Byzantium, Apollonia and other cities, the first Greek colonies in Thrace were founded in the eighth century BC. Thrace south of the Danube was ruled for half a century by the Persians under Darius the Great. In the first decade of the sixth century BC, the Persians invaded Thrace, Thracians were forced to join the invasions of European Scythia and Greece. According to Herodotus, the Bithynian Thracians also had to contribute a large contingent to Xerxes invasion of Greece in 480 BC, Darius left in Europe one of his commanders named Megabazus whose task was to accomplish conquests in the Balkans

13.
Phrygian language
–
The Phrygian language /ˈfrɪdʒiən/ was the Indo-European language of the Phrygians, spoken in Asia Minor during Classical Antiquity. Phrygian is considered by linguists to have been closely related to Greek. The similarity of some Phrygian words to Greek ones was observed by Plato in his Cratylus, however, Eric P. Hamp suggests that Phrygian was related to Italo-Celtic in a hypothetical Northwest Indo-European group. Phrygian is attested by two corpora, one dated to between about the 8th and the 4th century BCE, and then after a period of centuries from between the 1st and 3rd centuries of the Common Era. The Paleo-Phrygian corpus is further divided into inscriptions of Midas, Gordion, Central, Bithynia, Pteria, Tyana, Daskyleion, Bayindir, the Mysian inscriptions seem to be in a separate dialect. The last mentions of the date to the 5th century CE. Paleo-Phrygian used a Phoenician-derived script, while Neo-Phrygian used the Greek script. Its structure, what can be recovered from it, was typically Indo-European, with nouns declined for case, gender and number, while the verbs are conjugated for tense, voice, mood, person, no single word is attested in all its inflectional forms. Phrygian seems to exhibit an augment, like Greek, Indo-Iranian and Armenian, c. f. eberet, probably corresponding to PIE *e-bher-e-t, to, which is not a past tense form, shows that -et may be from the PIE primary ending *-eti. This hypothesis has been rejected by Lejeune and Brixhe. e, voicing of PIE aspirates and devoicing of PIE voiced stops. The affricates ts and dz developed from velars before front vowels, Phrygian is attested fragmentarily, known only from a comparatively small corpus of inscriptions. A few hundred Phrygian words are attested, however, the meaning, a famous Phrygian word is bekos, meaning bread. According to Herodotus Pharaoh Psammetichus I wanted to determine the oldest nation, for this purpose, he ordered two children to be reared by a shepherd, forbidding him to let them hear a single word, and charging him to report the childrens first utterance. After two years, the shepherd reported that on entering their chamber, the children came up to him, extending their hands, calling bekos. Upon enquiry, the discovered that this was the Phrygian word for wheat bread. The word bekos is also attested several times in Palaeo-Phrygian inscriptions on funerary stelae and it may be cognate to the English bake. Hittite, Luwian, Galatian and Greek all influenced Phrygian vocabulary, according to Clement of Alexandria, the Phrygian word bedu meaning water appeared in Orphic ritual. The Greek theonym Zeus appears in Phrygian with the stem Ti-, perhaps with the general meaning god, the shift of *d to t in Phrygian and the loss of *w before o appears to be regular

14.
Pelasgian
–
The name Pelasgians was used by classical Greek writers to either refer to populations that were the ancestors of the Greeks, or to signify all pre-classical indigenes of Greece. During the classical period, enclaves under that name survived in several locations of mainland Greece, Crete, populations identified as Pelasgian spoke a language or languages that at the time Greeks identified as barbaric, though some ancient writers nonetheless described the Pelasgians as Greeks. A tradition also survived that large parts of Greece had once been Pelasgian before being Hellenized and these parts fell largely, though far from exclusively, within the territory which by the 5th century BC was inhabited by those speakers of ancient Greek who were identified as Ionians and Aeolians. Much like all aspects of the Pelasgians, their ethnonym is of extremely uncertain provenance. Michel Sakellariou collects fifteen different etymologies proposed for it by philologists and linguists during the last 200 years, an ancient etymology based on mere similarity of sounds linked pelasgos to pelargos and postulates that the Pelasgians were migrants like storks, possibly from Egypt, where they nest. Aristophanes deals effectively with this etymology in his comedy The Birds, julius Pokorny derives Pelasgoi from *pelag-skoi, specifically Inhabitants of the Thessalian plain. He details a previous derivation, which appears in English at least as early as William Gladstones Studies on Homer, if the Pelasgians were not Indo-Europeans, the name in this derivation must have been assigned by the Hellenes. Ernest Klein argued that the ancient Greek word for sea, pelagos and the Doric word plagos, side shared the same root, *plāk-, and that *pelag-skoi therefore meant the sea men, where the sea is flat. This could be connected to the maritime marauders referred to as the Sea People in Egyptian records, subsequent scholarship shows that the connection between the two roots is phonetically impossible. Literary analysis has been going on since classical Greece, when the writers of those times read previous works on the subject, no definitive answers were ever forthcoming by this method, it rather served to better define the problems. The method perhaps reached a peak in the Victorian era when new methods of systematic comparison began to be applied in philology, typical of the era is the long and detailed study of William Ewart Gladstone, who among his many talents was a trained classicist. Until further ancient texts come to light, advances on the subject cannot be made, the most likely source of progress regarding the Pelasgians continues to be archaeology and related sciences. The Pelasgians first appear in the poems of Homer, those who are stated to be Pelasgians in the Iliad are among the allies of Troy. In the section known as the Catalogue of Trojans, they are mentioned between mentions of the Hellespontine cities and the Thracians of south-eastern Europe, Homer calls their town or district Larisa and characterises it as fertile, and its inhabitants as celebrated for their spearsmanship. He records their chiefs as Hippothous and Pylaeus, sons of Lethus son of Teutamus, thus giving all of them names that were Greek or so thoroughly Hellenized that any foreign element has been effaced. In the Odyssey, Odysseus, affecting to be Cretan himself, instances Pelasgians among the tribes in the ninety cities of Crete, last on his list, Homer distinguishes them from other ethnicities on the island, Cretans proper, Achaeans, Cydonians, Dorians, and noble Pelasgians. The Iliad also refers to Pelasgic Argos, which is most likely to be the plain of Thessaly, and to Pelasgic Zeus, living in and ruling over Dodona, which must be the oracular one in Epirus. However, neither passage mentions actual Pelasgians, Myrmidons, Hellenes, and Achaeans specifically inhabit Thessaly and they all fought on the Greek side

15.
Onomastics
–
Onomastics or onomatology is the study of the origin, history, and use of proper names. Onomastics originates from the Greek ὀνομαστικός, which translates to of or belonging to naming, toponymy or toponomastics, the study of place names, is one of the principal branches of onomastics. Anthroponomastics is the study of personal names, onomastics can be helpful in data mining, with applications such as named-entity recognition, or recognition of the origin of names. It has also used in historical research to identify ethnic minorities within wider populations. Literary onomastics is the branch that researches the names in works of literature, an orthonym is the proper name of the object in question, the object of onomastic study. The Portuguese writer and poet Fernando Pessoa explores onomastics in a literary setting through his invention of the heteronym

16.
Daco-Moesian
–
The extinct Dacian language developed from Proto-Indo-European, possibly in the Carpathian region sometime in the period 3000–1500 BC. The language was extinct by AD600. In the 1st century AD, it was probably the predominant language of the ancient regions of Dacia and Moesia, Dacian was a language distinct from Thracian but closely related to it, belonging to the same branch of the Indo-European family. Dacian was a language not closely related to either Thracian or Phrygian, each of these languages belonging to different branches of Indo-European, e. g. Georgiev, the Dacian language is poorly documented. Unlike for Phrygian, which is documented by c.200 inscriptions, the Dacian names for a number of medicinal plants and herbs may survive in ancient literary texts, including about 60 plant-names in Dioscorides. About 1,150 personal names and 900 toponyms may also be of Dacian origin, a few hundred words in modern Romanian and Albanian may have originated in ancient Balkan languages such as Dacian. There is scholarly consensus that Dacian was a member of the Indo-European family of languages, according to both theories, proto-IE reached the Carpathian region no later than c.2500 BC. Supporters of both theories have suggested this region as IEs secondary urheimat, in which the differentiation of proto-IE into the various European language-groups began. There is thus considerable support for the thesis that Dacian developed in the Carpathian region during the third millennium BC, although its evolutionary pathways remains uncertain. From these proto-Thracians, in the Iron Age, developed the Dacians / North Thracians of the Danubian-Carpathian Area on the one hand, many characteristics of the Dacian language are disputed or unknown. No lengthy texts in Dacian exist, only a few glosses and personal names in ancient Greek, no Dacian-language inscriptions have been discovered, except some of names in the Latin or Greek alphabet. What is known about the language derives from, Placenames, river-names and personal names, the coin inscription KOΣON may also be a personal name, of the king who issued the coin. The Dacian names of about fifty plants written in Greek and Roman sources, etymologies have been established for only a few of them. Substratum words found in Romanian, the language that is today in most of the region once occupied by Dacian-speakers. These include about 400 words of uncertain origin, Romanian words for which a Dacian origin has been proposed include, balaur, brânză, mal, strugure. However, the value of the words as a source for the Dacian language is limited because there is no certainty that these are of Dacian origin. An illustration of the latter possibility are pre-Indo-European substratum in Spanish e. g. fox = zorro, from Basque azeri, a pre-Indo-European origin has been proposed for several Romanian substratum words e. g. balaur, brad. About 160 of the Romanian substratum words have cognates in Albanian, a possible example is Romanian brad, Alb. cognate bradh

17.
Illyrian language
–
The Illyrian languages are part of the Indo-European language family. The relation of the Illyrian languages to other Indo-European languages—ancient and modern—is poorly understood due to the paucity of data and is still being examined, a grouping of Illyrian with the Messapian language has been proposed for about a century, but remains an unproven hypothesis. The theory is based on sources, archaeology and onomastics. Messapian material culture bears a number of similarities to Illyrian material culture, Some Messapian anthroponyms have close Illyrian equivalents. A grouping of Illyrian with the Venetic language and Liburnian language, once spoken in northeastern Italy, the consensus now is that Illyrian was quite distinct from Venetic and Liburnian. The relation between Venetic and Illyrian was later discredited and they are no longer considered closely related and they also point to other toponyms including Osseriates derived from /*eghero/ or Birziminium from PIE /*bherǵh/ or Asamum from PIE /*aḱ-mo/. For example, Vescleves has been explained as PIE *wesu-ḱlewes, also, the name Acrabanus as a compound name has been compared with Ancient Greek /akros/ with no signs of palatalization, or Clausal has been related to /*klew/. However, it has shown that even in Albanian and Balto-Slavic. Even the name Gentius or Genthius does not help to solve the problem since we have two Illyrian forms Genthius and Zanatis. If Gentius or Genthius derives from *ǵen- this is proof of a Centum language, another problem related to the name Gentius is that nowadays it cannot be stated surely if the initial /g/ of the sources was a palatovelar or a labiovelar. However, the insufficiency of this theory is that so far there is no certainty as to the historical or etymological development of either ardhja/hardhi or Ardiaioi, as with many other words. Bindo/Bindus, an Illyrian deity from Bihać, Bosnia and Herzegovina, cf. Alb. bind to convince or to make believe, bilia daughter, cf. Alb. bijë, dial. I madh big, great mantía bramblebush, Old and dial, Alb. mandë berry, mulberry Ragusa-Ragusium grape, cf. Proto-Alb. Ragusha rhinos fog, mist, cf. Old Alb. ren cloud Vendum place, wen-ta The Greeks were the first literate people to come into frequent contact with the speakers of Illyrian languages. Their conception of Illyrioi, however, differed from what the Romans would later call Illyricum, the Greek term encompassed only the peoples who lived on the borders of Macedonia and Epirus. Pliny the Elder, in his work Natural History, applies a stricter usage of the term Illyrii when speaking of Illyrii proprie dicti among the communities in the south of Roman Dalmatia. For a couple of centuries before and after the Roman conquest in the late 1st century BC, finally it encompassed all native peoples from the Adriatic to the Danube, inhabiting the Roman provinces of Dalmatia, Pannonia and Moesia, regardless of their ethnic and cultural differences. An extensive study of Illyrian names and territory was undertaken by Hans Krahe in the first decades of the twentieth century

18.
Dacians
–
The Dacians were an Indo-European people, part of or related to the Thracians. Dacians were the ancient inhabitants of Dacia, located in the area in and around the Carpathian Mountains and this area includes the present-day countries of Romania and Moldova, as well as parts of Ukraine, Eastern Serbia, Northern Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary and Southern Poland. The Dacians were known as Geta in Ancient Greek writings, and as Dacus or Getae in Roman documents and it was Herodotus who first used the ethnonym Getae in his Histories. In Greek and Latin, in the writings of Julius Caesar, Strabo, and Pliny the Elder, Getae and Dacians were interchangeable terms, or used with some confusion by the Greeks. Latin poets often used the name Getae, vergil called them Getae four times, and Daci once, Lucian Getae three times and Daci twice, Horace named them Getae twice and Daci five times, while Juvenal one time Getae and two times Daci. In AD113, Hadrian used the poetic term Getae for the Dacians, modern historians prefer to use the name Geto-Dacians. Strabo describes the Getae and Dacians as distinct but cognate tribes and this distinction refers to the regions they occupied. Strabo and Pliny the Elder also state that Getae and Dacians spoke the same language, by contrast, the name of Dacians, whatever the origin of the name, was used by the more western tribes who adjoined the Pannonians and therefore first became known to the Romans. According to Strabos Geographica, the name of the Dacians was Δάοι Daoi. The name Daoi was certainly adopted by foreign observers to designate all the inhabitants of the north of Danube that had not yet been conquered by Greece or Rome. The ethnographic name Daci is found under various forms within ancient sources, Greeks used the forms Δάκοι Dakoi and Δάοι Daoi. The form Δάοι Daoi was frequently used according to Stephan of Byzantium, latins used the forms Davus, Dacus, and a derived form Dacisci. There are similarities between the ethnonyms of the Dacians and those of Dahae, an Indo-European people located east of the Caspian Sea, scholars have suggested that there were links between the two peoples since ancient times. The historian David Gordon White has, moreover, stated that the Dacians, appear to be related to the Dahae. The name Daci, or Dacians is a collective ethnonym, Dio Cassius reported that the Dacians themselves used that name, and the Romans so called them, while the Greeks called them Getae. Opinions on the origins of the name Daci are divided, one hypothesis is that the name Getae originates in the Indo-European *guet- to utter, to talk. Another hypothesis is that Getae and Daci are Iranian names of two Iranian-speaking Scythian groups that had assimilated into the larger Thracian-speaking population of the later Dacia. In the 1st century AD, Strabo suggested that its stem formed a name borne by slaves, Greek Daos

19.
Illyrian languages
–
The Illyrian languages are part of the Indo-European language family. The relation of the Illyrian languages to other Indo-European languages—ancient and modern—is poorly understood due to the paucity of data and is still being examined, a grouping of Illyrian with the Messapian language has been proposed for about a century, but remains an unproven hypothesis. The theory is based on sources, archaeology and onomastics. Messapian material culture bears a number of similarities to Illyrian material culture, Some Messapian anthroponyms have close Illyrian equivalents. A grouping of Illyrian with the Venetic language and Liburnian language, once spoken in northeastern Italy, the consensus now is that Illyrian was quite distinct from Venetic and Liburnian. The relation between Venetic and Illyrian was later discredited and they are no longer considered closely related and they also point to other toponyms including Osseriates derived from /*eghero/ or Birziminium from PIE /*bherǵh/ or Asamum from PIE /*aḱ-mo/. For example, Vescleves has been explained as PIE *wesu-ḱlewes, also, the name Acrabanus as a compound name has been compared with Ancient Greek /akros/ with no signs of palatalization, or Clausal has been related to /*klew/. However, it has shown that even in Albanian and Balto-Slavic. Even the name Gentius or Genthius does not help to solve the problem since we have two Illyrian forms Genthius and Zanatis. If Gentius or Genthius derives from *ǵen- this is proof of a Centum language, another problem related to the name Gentius is that nowadays it cannot be stated surely if the initial /g/ of the sources was a palatovelar or a labiovelar. However, the insufficiency of this theory is that so far there is no certainty as to the historical or etymological development of either ardhja/hardhi or Ardiaioi, as with many other words. Bindo/Bindus, an Illyrian deity from Bihać, Bosnia and Herzegovina, cf. Alb. bind to convince or to make believe, bilia daughter, cf. Alb. bijë, dial. I madh big, great mantía bramblebush, Old and dial, Alb. mandë berry, mulberry Ragusa-Ragusium grape, cf. Proto-Alb. Ragusha rhinos fog, mist, cf. Old Alb. ren cloud Vendum place, wen-ta The Greeks were the first literate people to come into frequent contact with the speakers of Illyrian languages. Their conception of Illyrioi, however, differed from what the Romans would later call Illyricum, the Greek term encompassed only the peoples who lived on the borders of Macedonia and Epirus. Pliny the Elder, in his work Natural History, applies a stricter usage of the term Illyrii when speaking of Illyrii proprie dicti among the communities in the south of Roman Dalmatia. For a couple of centuries before and after the Roman conquest in the late 1st century BC, finally it encompassed all native peoples from the Adriatic to the Danube, inhabiting the Roman provinces of Dalmatia, Pannonia and Moesia, regardless of their ethnic and cultural differences. An extensive study of Illyrian names and territory was undertaken by Hans Krahe in the first decades of the twentieth century

20.
Language shift
–
Language shift, also known as language transfer or language replacement or language assimilation, is the process whereby a speech community of a language shifts to speaking another language. Often, languages that are perceived to be higher status stabilise or spread at the expense of other languages that are perceived by their own speakers to be lower-status. For prehistory, Forster et al. and Forster and Renfrew observe that there is a correlation of language shift with intrusive male Y chromosomes but not necessarily with intrusive female mtDNA. They conclude that technological innovation or military prowess causes immigration of at least some males, the process whereby a community of speakers of one language becomes bilingual in another language, and gradually shifts allegiance to the second language is called assimilation. When a linguistic community ceases to use their language, language death is said to occur. The rate of assimilation is the percentage of individuals with a mother tongue who speak another language more often in the home. The data are used to measure the use of a language in the lifetime of a person. In the context of the Indo-European migrations, it has noted that small groups can change a larger cultural area. Michael Witzel refers to Ehret’s model which stresses the osmosis, or a ball, or Mallory’s Kulturkugel. According to Ehret, ethnicity and language can shift with relative ease in small societies, due to the cultural, economic, the group bringing new traits may initially be small, contributing features that can be fewer in number than those of the already local culture. The emerging combined group may then initiate a recurrent, expansionist process of ethnic, ethnohistorical cases demonstrate that small elite groups have successfully imposed their languages in non-state situations. Anthony gives the example of the Luo-speaking Acholi in northern Uganda in the 17th and 18th century, anthony notes that elite recruitment may be a suitable term for this system. Historical examples for status shift are the early Welsh and Lutheran Bible translations, leading to the liturgical languages Welsh, in the course of the 19th century, this number dropped significantly. By 1920, already a third of the population of the area had shifted to German as their language of communication. After the Carinthian Plebiscite in the 1920s, and especially after World War II, in the same region, today only some 13% of the people still speaks Slovene, while more than 85% of the population speaks German. The figures for the region are equally telling, in 1818, around 35% of the population of Carinthia spoke Slovene, by 1910. These changes were almost entirely the result of a shift in the population, with emigration. Despite the withdrawal of Belarus from the USSR proclaimed in 1991, according to a study done by the Belarusian government in 2009, 72% of Belarusians speak Russian at home, and Belarusian is used by only 11. 9% of Belarusians

21.
Creole language
–
A creole language is a stable natural language developed from a mixture of different languages. Creole languages, therefore, have a developed vocabulary and system of grammar. The precise number of languages is not known, particularly as many are poorly attested or documented. About one hundred creole languages have arisen since 1500 and these are predominantly based on European languages, due to the Age of Discovery and the Atlantic slave trade that arose at that time. In addition to creoles that have European languages as their base, there are, for example, creoles based on Arabic, Chinese, the Middle English creole hypothesis argues that English is itself a creole. If so, this would make it the creole with the largest number of speakers, if this hypothesis is untrue, the creole with the largest number of speakers is Haitian Creole, with about ten million native speakers. The lexicon of a language is largely supplied by the parent languages. However, there are often clear phonetic and semantic shifts, on the other hand, the grammar that has evolved often has new or unique features that differ substantially from those of the parent languages. A creole is believed to arise when a pidgin, developed by adults for use as a language, becomes the native. The pidgin-creole life cycle was studied by Hall in the 1960s, Creoles share more grammatical similarities with each other than with the languages from which they are phylogenetically derived. However, there is no accepted theory that would account for those perceived similarities. Like most non-official and minority languages, creoles have generally regarded in popular opinion as degenerate variants or dialects of their parent languages. Because of that prejudice, many of the creoles that arose in the European colonies, however, political and academic changes in recent decades have improved the status of creoles, both as living languages and as object of linguistic study. Some creoles have even been granted the status of official or semi-official languages of particular political territories, Linguists now recognize that creole formation is a universal phenomenon, not limited to the European colonial period, and an important aspect of language evolution. For example, in 1933 Sigmund Feist postulated a creole origin for the Germanic languages, Pidgins, according to Mufwene, emerged in trade colonies among users who preserved their native vernaculars for their day-to-day interactions. These servants and slaves would come to use the creole as an everyday vernacular, the English term creole comes from French créole, which is cognate with the Spanish term criollo and Portuguese crioulo, all descending from the verb criar, all coming from Latin creare. They were most commonly applied to nationals of the colonial power, however, in Brazil the term was also used to distinguish between negros crioulos and negros africanos. Over time, the term and its derivatives lost the generic meaning, originally, therefore, the term creole language meant the speech of any of those creole peoples

22.
Vardar
–
The Vardar or Axios is the longest and major river in the Republic of Macedonia and also a major river of Greece. It is 388 km long, and drains an area of around 25,000 km2, the maximum depth of the river is 4 m. The river rises at Vrutok, a few north of Gostivar in the Republic of Macedonia. The Vardar basin comprises two-thirds of the territory of the Republic of Macedonia, the valley features fertile lands in the Polog region, around Gevgelija and in the Thessaloniki regional unit. The river is surrounded by mountains elsewhere, the superhighways Greek National Road 1 in Greece and M1 and E75 run within the valley along the rivers entire length to near Skopje. The river was famous during the Ottoman Empire and modern-day Turkey and was the inspiration for many folk songs. It has also depicted on the coat of arms of Skopje. The Vardaris or Vardarec is a powerful prevailing northerly wind which blows across the river valley in Greek Macedonia as well as in the Republic of Macedonia. At first it descends along the canal of the Vardar valley, somewhat similar to the mistral wind of France, it occurs when atmospheric pressure over eastern Europe is higher than over the Aegean Sea, as is often the case in winter. The etymology of the word is unclear, however most probably, the origin of the name Vardar derives Bardários from Thracian, from Proto-Indo-European *wordo-wori- black water. The name Bardários was sometimes used by the Ancient Greeks in the 3rd Century BCE, the same name was widely used in the Byzantine era. The word may ultimately be derived from the PIE root *werǵ- and its Greek name, Axios, is mentioned by Homer as the home of the Paeonians allies of Troy. The name Affi is mentioned by Pjetër Bogdani in his work Cuneus Prophetarum as a name of Vardar. Great Morava Pčinja River Proceedings of the 1st Axios Catchment Consortium Meeting by the European Commission - DG Research, PIM Ivan Milutinović, Belgrade, Serbia, Morava - Vardar Navigation Route Morava - Vardar Navigation Route map Hydropower and navigation system Morava

23.
Great Morava
–
The Great Morava is the final section of the Morava, a major river system in Serbia. The Velika Morava begins at the confluence of the South Morava and the West Morava, located near the town of Stalać. From there to its confluence with the Danube northeast of the city of Smederevo, with its longer branch, the West Morava, it is 493 km long. The South Morava, which represents the natural headwaters of the Morava, used to be longer than the West Morava, at one time the Morava was over 600 km long. The drainage basin of the Velika Morava is 6,126 km², and of the whole Morava system is 37,444 km², Velika Morava flows through the most fertile and densely populated area of Central Serbia, called the Morava river valley or Pomoravlje. Pomoravlje was formed in a bay of a vast, ancient Pannonian Sea which dried out 200,000 years ago. Through about half of its length it passes through beautiful Bagrdan gorge, in past centuries, it was known for its seemingly endless forests, but there is almost nothing left today of those old woods. It flows into the Danube between the villages of Kulič & Dubravica, in the coal mining basin of Kostolac, one of two mines in its drainage basin. The average discharge of the Velika Morava on its confluence with Danube is 255 m³/s, tributaries of the Velika Morava are short, the longest one being the Jasenica and others rarely exceeding 50 km. Right tributaries are, Jovanovačka reka, Crnica, Ravanica, Resava, left tributaries are more numerous, including, Kalenićka reka, Lugomir, Belica River, Lepenica, Rača, and Jasenica. Many of them dont carry much water, but in years, they are known for causing major floods. Before it meets the Danube, the Velika Morava splits, creating a 47 km long arm called the Jezava and its joined by a longer river, the Ralja, from the left. The Velika Morava represents an example of a meandering river. It used to be 245 km long, but directly from its origin to the Danube, there is only 118 km in distance, its ratio is 118,245. The river bed is 80–200 m wide, and the depth as much as 10 m, notorious for its flooding, the Morava has changed its course many times, and old river bends have become small lakes, known as moravište. Južna Morava, with high erosion in its drainage basin, brings huge amounts of silt which is elevating Velika Moravas river bed. Beginning in 1966, huge works began on all three rivers to prevent future floodings, series of reservoirs were made on tributaries, and meanders were cut through, making river courses straightened, which made them shorter. It was projected that it would shorten by as much as 152 km, altogether,18 reservoirs are projected,23 meanders are to be cut, a series of embankments are to be built and intensive afforestation is to be started

24.
Bryges
–
Bryges or Briges is the historical name given to a people of the ancient Balkans. They are generally considered to have related to the Phrygians. Both names, Bryges and Phrygians, are assumed to be variants of the same root, small groups of Bryges, after the migration to Anatolia and the expansion of the kingdom of Macedon, were still left in northern Pelagonia and around Epidamnus. Herodotus also mentions that in 492 BC, some Thracian Brygoi or Brygians fell upon the Persian camp by night, wounding Mardonius himself and these Brygoi were later mentioned in Plutarchs Parallel Lives, in the Battle of Philippi, as camp servants of Brutus. However, modern state that a historical link between them and the original Bryges cannot be established. There is no certain derivation for the name and tribal origin of the Bryges, in 1844, Hermann Müller suggested the name might be related to the same Indo-European root as that of German Berg and Serbian breg, i. e. IE bʰerǵʰ. Some personal or geographic names mentioned in ancient authors may be related to Bryges, Brygean islands in the supposed Adriatic delta of Istros. Brygias or Brygium, city in Lychnitis palus, brygindara, Brygindis, Brygindarios in Rhodes island. Phrygia Armeno-Phrygian Moschoi Macedonia Thrace Phrygian cap

25.
Dardani
–
Their territory itself was not considered part of Illyria by Strabo. The term used for their territory was, while other areas had more unspecified terms, such as. Other than that, little to no data exists on the territory of the Dardani prior to Roman conquest, the Dardani/Dardanoi derived their name from Dardanus, the mythical founder of Dardania, an ancient city in the Troad. In Greek mythology, Dardanus was a son of Zeus and Electra, Dardanus Pronunciation of Dardanus as a name for boys has its root in Greek. Dardanus is a spelling of Dardanos. The Dardani are first mentioned in the 4th century BC, when their king Bardylis succeeded into bringing various tribes into a single organization, under his leadership the Dardani defeated the Macedonians and Molossians several times. At this time they were enough to rule Macedonia through a puppet king in 392-391 BC. In 385-384 they allied with Dionysius I of Syracuse and defeated the Molossians, killing up to 15,000 of their soldiers and their continuous invasions forced the Macedonian king to pay them a tribute in 372 BC. They returned raiding the Molossians in 360, in 359 BC Bardylis won a decisive battle against Macedonian king Perdiccas III, whom he killed himself, while 4,000 Macedonian soldiers fell, and the cities of upper Macedonia were occupied. The time of marriage is somewhat disputed while some historians maintain that the marriage happened after the defeat of Bardylis. In 334 BC, under the leadership of Cleitus, the son of Bardylis, the Dardani managed to capture some cities but were eventually defeated by Alexanders forces. Celts were present in Dardania in 279 BC, the Dardanian king offered to help the Macedonians with 20,000 soldiers against the Celts, but this was refused by Macedonian king Ptolemy Keraunos. Dardani were a constant threat to the Macedonian kingdom, in 230 under Longarus they captured Bylazora from the Paionians and in 229 they again attacked Macedonia, defeating Demetrius II in an important battle. In this period their influence on the region grew and some other Illyrian tribes defected Teuta joining the Dardani under Longarus, when Philip V rose to the Macedonian throne, skirmishing with Dardani began in 220-219 BC and he managed to capture Bylazora from them in 217 BC. In 201 Bato of Dardania along with Pleuratus the Illyrian and Amynander king of Athamania, a joint campaign of the Bastarnae and Macedonians against the Dardanians was organized, but Philip V died and his son Perseus of Macedon withdrew his forces from the campaign. The Bastarnae crossed the Danube in huge numbers and although they didnt meet the Macedonians, some 30,000 Bastarnae under the command of Clondicus seem to have defeated the Dardani. In 179 BC, the Bastarnae conquered the Dardani, who later in 174 pushed them out, in a war which proved catastrophic, with a few later, in 170 BC. Macedonia and Illyria became Roman protectorates in 168 BC, the Scordisci, a tribe of Celtic origin, most likely subdued the Dardani in the mid-2nd century BC, after which there are for long no mention of the Dardani

26.
Apulia
–
Apulia is a region of Italy in Southern Italy bordering the Adriatic Sea in the east, the Ionian Sea to the southeast, and the Strait of Òtranto and Gulf of Taranto in the south. Its southernmost portion, known as the Salento peninsula, forms a stiletto on the boot of Italy, the region comprises 19,345 square kilometers, and its population is about 4 million. It is bordered by the other Italian regions of Molise to the north, Campania to the west, across the Adriatic and Ionian Seas, it faces Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, and Montenegro, The Apulia region extends as far north as Monte Gargano. Puglias coastline is longer than any other mainland Italian region, in the north, the Gargano promontory extends out into the Adriatic, while in the south, the flat and dry Salento peninsula forms the heel of Italys boot. It is home to the Alta Murgia and Gargano National Parks, see also, History of Apulia Apulia is one of the richest archaeological regions in Italy. It was first colonized by Mycenaean Greeks, a number of castles were built in the area by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, including Castel del Monte, sometimes called the Crown of Apulia. After 1282, when the island of Sicily was lost, Apulia was part of the Kingdom of Naples, as a result of the French–Spanish war of 1501–1504, Naples again came under the rule of Aragon and the Spanish Empire from 1504 to 1714. When Barbary pirates of North Africa sacked Vieste in 1554, they took an estimated 7,000 slaves, in 1861 the region became part of the Kingdom of Italy, with the new capital city at Turin. In the words of one historian, Turin was so far away that Otranto is today closer to seventeen foreign capitals than it is to Turin, the regions contribution to Italys gross value added was around 4. 6% in 2000, while its population was 7% of the total. The per capita GDP is low compared to the national average, in comparison with the country as a whole, the economy of Apulia is characterised by a greater emphasis on agriculture and services and a smaller part played by industry. In the last 20 years the base of the regions economy has changed radically. The majority of firms are financed by local capital. In certain of these sectors – especially textiles, clothing, footwear, vehicles, the region has a good network of roads but the railway network is somewhat inadequate, particularly in the south. Apulias 800 kilometers of coastline is studded with ports, which make this region an important terminal for transport and tourism to Greece, between 2007 and 2013 the economy of Apulia expanded more than that of the rest of southern Italy. Such growth, over decades, is a severe challenge to the hydrogeological system. Emigration from the depressed areas to northern Italy and the rest of Europe was very intense in the years between 1956 and 1971. Subsequently, the trend declined as economic conditions improved, to the point where there was net immigration in the years between 1982 and 1985, since 1986 the stagnation in employment has led to a new inversion of the trend, caused by a decrease in immigration. Since 1 June 2015, former judge and mayor of Bari Michele Emiliano of the Democratic Party has served as President, Apulia is divided into five administrative provinces and one metropolitan city, Cuisine plays an important role throughout Apulia

27.
Triballi
–
The Triballi were a Thracian tribe that received influences from Celts, Scythians and Illyrians. In 424 BC, they were attacked by Sitalkes, king of the Odrysae and they were pushed to the east by the invading Autariatae, an Illyrian tribe, the date of this event is uncertain. In 339 BC, when Philip II of Macedon was returning from his expedition against the Scythians, hostilities took place, in which Philip was defeated and wounded by a spear in his right thigh, but the Triballi appear to have been subsequently subdued by him. 3,000 Triballi were killed, the rest fled and their king Syrmus took refuge on the Danubian island of Peukê, where most of the remnants of the defeated Thracians were exiled. They were attacked by Autariatae and Celts in 295 BC, the punishment inflicted by Ptolemy Keraunos on the Getae, however, induced the Triballi to sue for peace. About 279 BC, a host of Gauls under Cerethrius defeated the Triballi with an army of 3,000 horsemen and 15,000 foot soldiers, the defeat pushed the Triballi further to the east. Nevertheless, they continued to cause trouble to the Roman governors of Macedonia for fifty years, the Illyrian Dardani tribe settled in the southwest of the Triballi area in 87 BC. The Thracian place names survives the Romanization of the region Pliny the Elder registers them as one of the tribes of Moesia. In the time of Ptolemy, their territory was limited to the district between the Ciabrus and Utus rivers, part of what is now Bulgaria, their town was Oescus. Under Tiberius, mention is made of Triballia in Moesia, the name occurs for the last time during the reign of Diocletian, who dates a letter from Triballis. The Triballi were often described as a wild and warlike people, and in Aristophanes, the term Triballians appears frequently in Byzantine and other European works of the Middle Ages, referring exclusively to Serbs. Some of these authors clearly explain that Triballian is synonym to Serbian, for example, Niketas Choniates in his history about Emperor Ioannes Komnenos. Shortly after this, he campaigned against the nation of Triballians, or the much later Demetrios Chalkondyles, referring to an Islamized Christian noble. This Mahmud, son of Michael, is Triballian, which means Serbian, by his mother, or Mehmed the Conqueror when referring to the plundering of Serbia. In the 15th century, a coat of arms of Tribalia, depicting a boar with an arrow pierced through the head. The motif had, in 1415, been used as the Coat of Arms of the Serbian Despotate and is recalled in one of Stefan Lazarevićs personal Seals, pavao Ritter Vitezović also depicts Triballia with the same motif in 1701 and Hristofor Zhefarovich again in 1741. With the beginning of the First Serbian Uprising, the Parliament adopted the Serbian Coat of Arms in 1805, a male grave at Vratsa, with a female thracian suttee Archeological findings prove that the Triballi inhabited the Morava valley region in the Iron Age. In 2005, several possibly Triballi graves were found at the Hisar Hill in Leskovac, in June 2008, a Triballi grave was found together with ceramics in Požarevac, Central-Eastern Serbia

28.
Czech language
–
Czech, historically also Bohemian, is a West Slavic language of the Czech–Slovak group. It is spoken by over 10 million people and is the language of the Czech Republic. Czech is closely related to Slovak, to the point of being intelligible to a very high degree. In the later 18th to mid-19th century, the written standard was codified in the context of the Czech National Revival. The main vernacular, known as Common Czech, is based on the vernacular of Prague, the Moravian dialects spoken in the eastern part of the country are mostly also counted as Czech, although some of their eastern variants are closer to Slovak. The Czech phoneme inventory is moderate in size, comprising five vowels, words may contain uncommon consonant clusters, including one consonant represented by the grapheme ř, or lack vowels altogether. Czech orthography is simple, and has used as a model by phonologists. Czech is classified as a member of the West Slavic sub-branch of the Slavic branch of the Indo-European language family and this branch includes Polish, Kashubian, Upper and Lower Sorbian and Slovak. Slovak is by far the closest genetic neighbor of Czech, the West Slavic languages are spoken in an area classified as part of Central Europe. Around the 7th century, the Slavic expansion reached Central Europe, the West Slavic polity of Great Moravia formed by the 9th century. The Christianization of Bohemia took place during the 9th and 10th centuries, the Bohemian language is first recorded in writing in glosses and short notes during the 12th to 13th centuries. Literary works written in Czech appear in the early 14th century, the first complete Bible translation also dates to this period. Old Czech texts, including poetry and cookbooks, were produced outside the university as well, literary activity becomes widespread in the early 15th century in the context of the Bohemian Reformation. There was no standardization distinguishing between Czech and Slovak prior to the 15th century, the publication of the Kralice Bible between 1579 and 1593 became very important for standardization of the Czech language in the following centuries. In 1615, the Bohemian diet tried to declare Czech to be the official language of the kingdom. After the Bohemian Revolt which was defeated by the Habsburgs in 1620 and this emigration together with other consequences of the Thirty Years War had a negative impact on the further use of the Czech language. In 1627, Czech and German became official languages of the Kingdom of Bohemia and in the 18th century German became dominant in Bohemia and Moravia, the modern standard Czech language originates in standardization efforts of the 18th century. Changes include the shift of í to ej and é to í and the merging of í

29.
Centum
–
Languages of the Indo-European family are classified as either centum languages or satem languages according to how the dorsal consonants of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language developed. An example of the different developments is provided by the words for hundred found in the early attested Indo-European languages, in centum languages, they typically began with a /k/ sound, but in satem languages, they often began with /s/. In centum languages, the palatovelars, which included the initial consonant of the hundred root, in satem languages, they remained distinct, and the labiovelars merged with the plain velars. The centum–satem division forms an isogloss in synchronic descriptions of Indo-European languages and it is not thought that the Proto-Indo-European language split first into centum and satem branches from which all the centum and all the satem languages, respectively, would have derived. Each of the ten branches of the Indo-European family independently developed its status as a centum or satem language, the canonical centum languages of the Indo-European family are the western branches, Hellenic, Celtic, Italic and Germanic. They merged Proto-Indo-European palatovelars and plain velars, yielding plain velars only, the Anatolian branch likely falls outside the centum–satem dichotomy, for instance, Luwian indicates that all three dorsal consonant rows survived separately in Proto-Anatolian. The centumisation observed in Hittite is therefore assumed to have occurred only after the breakup of Proto-Anatolian, while Tocharian is generally regarded as a centum language, it is a special case, as it has merged all three of the PIE dorsal series into a single phoneme, *k. According to some scholars, that complicates the classification of Tocharian within the centum–satem model, in the centum languages, PIE roots reconstructed with palatovelars developed into forms with plain velars. For example, in the PIE root *ḱm̥tóm, hundred, the initial palatovelar *ḱ became a plain velar /k/, as in Latin centum, Greek katon, Welsh cant, Tocharian B kante. In the Germanic languages, the /k/ developed regularly by Grimms law to become /h/, centum languages also retained the distinction between the PIE labiovelar row and the plain velars. Labiovelars as single phonemes as opposed to biphonemes are attested in Greek, the boukólos rule, however, states that a labiovelar reduces to a plain velar when it occurs next to *u or *w. The centum–satem division refers to the development of the series at the time of the earliest separation of Proto-Indo-European into the proto-languages of its individual daughter branches. It does not apply to any later analogous developments within any individual branch, the satem languages belong to the eastern sub-families, especially Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. It lost the element of Proto-Indo-European labiovelars and merged them with plain velars. That set of developments, particularly the assibilation of palatovelars, is referred to as satemisation and it is also asserted that in Sanskrit and Balto-Slavic, in some environments, resonant consonants become /iR/ after plain velars but /uR/ after labiovelars. In the satem languages, the reflexes of the presumed PIE palatovelars are typically fricative or affricate consonants, another example is the Slavic prefix sъ-, which appears in Latin, a centum language, as co-, conjoin is cognate with Russian soyuz. An is found for PIE *ḱ in such languages as Latvian, Avestan, Russian and Armenian, for more reflexes, see the phonetic correspondences section below, note also the effect of the ruki sound law. Assibilation of velars in certain phonetic environments is a phenomenon in language development

30.
Classical antiquity
–
It is the period in which Greek and Roman society flourished and wielded great influence throughout Europe, North Africa and Southwestern Asia. Conventionally, it is taken to begin with the earliest-recorded Epic Greek poetry of Homer, and continues through the emergence of Christianity and it ends with the dissolution of classical culture at the close of Late Antiquity, blending into the Early Middle Ages. Such a wide sampling of history and territory covers many disparate cultures, Classical antiquity may refer also to an idealised vision among later people of what was, in Edgar Allan Poes words, the glory that was Greece, and the grandeur that was Rome. The culture of the ancient Greeks, together with influences from the ancient Near East, was the basis of art, philosophy, society. The earliest period of classical antiquity takes place before the background of gradual re-appearance of historical sources following the Bronze Age collapse, the 8th and 7th centuries BC are still largely proto-historical, with the earliest Greek alphabetic inscriptions appearing in the first half of the 8th century. Homer is usually assumed to have lived in the 8th or 7th century BC, in the same period falls the traditional date for the establishment of the Ancient Olympic Games, in 776 BC. The Phoenicians originally expanded from Canaan ports, by the 8th century dominating trade in the Mediterranean, carthage was founded in 814 BC, and the Carthaginians by 700 BC had firmly established strongholds in Sicily, Italy and Sardinia, which created conflicts of interest with Etruria. The Etruscans had established control in the region by the late 7th century BC, forming the aristocratic. According to legend, Rome was founded on April 21,753 BC by twin descendants of the Trojan prince Aeneas, Romulus and Remus. As the city was bereft of women, legend says that the Latins invited the Sabines to a festival and stole their unmarried maidens, leading to the integration of the Latins and the Sabines. Archaeological evidence indeed shows first traces of settlement at the Roman Forum in the mid-8th century BC, the seventh and final king of Rome was Tarquinius Superbus. As the son of Tarquinius Priscus and the son-in-law of Servius Tullius, Superbus was of Etruscan birth and it was during his reign that the Etruscans reached their apex of power. Superbus removed and destroyed all the Sabine shrines and altars from the Tarpeian Rock, the people came to object to his rule when he failed to recognize the rape of Lucretia, a patrician Roman, at the hands of his own son. Lucretias kinsman, Lucius Junius Brutus, summoned the Senate and had Superbus, after Superbus expulsion, the Senate voted to never again allow the rule of a king and reformed Rome into a republican government in 509 BC. In fact the Latin word Rex meaning King became a dirty and hated throughout the Republic. In 510, Spartan troops helped the Athenians overthrow the tyrant Hippias, cleomenes I, king of Sparta, put in place a pro-Spartan oligarchy conducted by Isagoras. Greece entered the 4th century under Spartan hegemony, but by 395 BC the Spartan rulers removed Lysander from office, and Sparta lost her naval supremacy. Athens, Argos, Thebes and Corinth, the two of which were formerly Spartan allies, challenged Spartan dominance in the Corinthian War, which ended inconclusively in 387 BC